GEORGE WHALEN, PETITIONER, VS. B. ROSE ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

The plaintiff  brought this original action of certiorari in the Supreme Court for the purpose of  having reviewed a judgment entered  in  the justice of the  peace court of the municipality  of Iloilo.  The justice  of  the  peace, and B. Rose of Iloilo, and the sheriff  of Manila are  defendants. B. Rose instituted  in the justice of the  peace  court of the city of Iloilo on the 21st  of April, 1915, a civil action against the herein plaintiff, George Whalen, to recover the sum of P100,  with  interest and costs.  On  the 22d of April, 1915, a  summons was issued  by the justice of the peace directing  the therein defendant  Whalen to appear on the  12th of May of that year to answer and defend the action, otherwise judgment by default would be taken.  The summons was served upon the defendant on the 28th day of April, 1915.   He did not appear on the day set for trial and judgment was  entered in favor of the plaintiff for the amount sued upon.  The herein plaintiff now insists that the justice of the peace  did not  have jurisdiction over his person for the reason that he was a resident of the city of Manila at the time  the action complained of was instituted and at the time he was served with a copy of the complaint, citing section 51 and chapter 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended  by Act No. 1627.

The Courts of First Instance under  section  217 of the Code  of  Civil Procedure are authorized to  issue writs of certiorari where it appears that an inferior tribunal, board, or officer has exceeded its jurisdiction, and section 514 confers upon the Supreme Court concurrent jurisdiction with the Courts of First Instance in certiorari proceedings over inferior tribunals.  In those cases, like the one under consideration, where both the Supreme Court and the Court of First Instance have jurisdiction to issue the writ of  certiorari, the law does not state in which court the action shall  be  instituted, and  the question  arises whether we should take cognizance of this case in view of the fact that the Court of First Instance is open to the plaintiff,  and the further fact that both the justice of the peace and the principal  defendant live  in  Iloilo.  After a consideration of all the elements entering into this case,  we have decided that the  better practice is for the plaintiff  to  seek his remedy in the Court of First Instance in the city of Iloilo. There is absolutely no reason why he should have entered this court except that he is a resident of  Manila.   This reason is overcome  by the fact that, as we have stated, the justice of the peace and the principal defendant are  residents of Iloilo.  If it were shown that the Court of First Instance was not open in Iloilo or that the  plaintiff could not for some other  valid reason obtain relief in that court, then we would take jurisdiction and determine whether or not the writ ought to  issue.  But where it is  sought to review a simple judgment of the justice of the peace in a province where the Court  of First Instance is in session, we think we should decline to take jurisdiction and  say that the plaintiff must first seek his remedy in that court.

Herrera vs. Barretto and Joaquin  (25 Phil.  Rep., 245) and Gonzalez  vs. Moir  (27 Phil.  Rep.,  256)  were both original actions of certiorari in this court wherein the plaintiffs sought to have certain orders, issued  by the defendant judges, vacated or modified.  We declined to take jurisdiction for the purpose of determining the merits of the cases. We held that the better practice required the plaintiffs to seek their  relief in  the Courts of First Instance.  Our ruling in the case under consideration is in line with  the doctrine announced  in  the  cases  above cited.

For the foregoing reasons, without deciding whether or not the writ  of  certiorari  should issue,  judgment will  be entered  dismissing  this action, with costs against  the plaintiff.  So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, Carson, and Araullo, JJ., concur.